ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

War stories

| Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2004

Once again we're supposed to feel sorry for the poor reservist who is called to active duty (" A return to action ," Nov. 24). This article begs the question: Why did Paul Dunlap, of Pleasant Unity, volunteer for the National Guard if he didn't think he would ever have to face the enemy•

The National Guard is supposed to be made up of those who feel a loyalty to and a love of their country, not those who feel it's a cushy way to receive a monthly check and eventual generous retirement package.

Mr. Dunlap is a first sergeant in the Army National Guard, which means he is supposed to lead his men in support of the task at hand. Some example he sets! Suck it up, Marine! (Oh, sorry, he switched from the Marines to the Army ... is this because the chance for promotion was better in the Army?). Also, his chances of encountering the enemy in Kuwait are slim since he is in a non-combat unit and area.

The Trib would serve its readers in a more responsible way if it would educate subscribers as to how much these "weekend warriors" make and what their retirement package totals. The minute they are asked to do the job they've been paid to do, we're expected to be teary and sad.

His drill instructor taught him better, and Mr. Dunlap knows it.

You volunteered, first sergeant. Now do your job!

V.J. Oddo
Greensburg

The writer is a retired U.S. Marine Corps reservist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me